Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
